Mumbai Court April 2014 Judgments
Yashwant Anant Fadte Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Since the main dispute is between the petitioners and the legal heirs of respondents no. 2, the petition is heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.2(a) to 2(d). Remaining respondents are absent though duly served. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.2(a) to 2(d). 4. The point that arises for my determination is:- Whether the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal is illegal and against well settled principles of l aw? 5. By the impugned order, the learned Additional President has allowed the application dated 5.1.2012 filed by the legal heirs of respondent no. 2 to drop respondent no. 2 from the proceedings as he was reported to be dead. The only ground stated by learned Additional President for allowing the application is that since deceased respondent no. 2 was proforma respondent against whom no relief was soug...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Power Turnkey Implements Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
A.M. Badar, J. 1. Heard. Rule. With consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By the instant petition, the petitioner, which is a private limited Company, is praying for quashing and setting aside the tender notice No. 31/201314, published by the respondent No.1 “ Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai (For short, œthe MIDC?), and for declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in inviting fresh tenders for the work which was already tendered by it, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. 3. Facts, necessary for deciding the instant petition can be summarized as under: In response to tender notice bearing No. 17/2013-14, issued by the respondent No.1 “ MIDC, the petitioner company which is A-Class Electrical contractor, has submitted its tender for providing, erecting and commissioning of 33/11kv sub station, 2 x 10 MVA Transformer and 6 outgoing feeder substation in SEZ of Shendra Five Star Industrial Area ...
Tag this Judgment!Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia, of Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. By an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by this Court, this Court framed the following preliminary issue : "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the originating summons which has been taken out by the plaintiff in view of the suit being filed in the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the said Act after the originating summons was filed?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court on the preliminary issue framed by this Court. None of the parties have led oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Since the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant addressed this Court first followed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary issue are as under:- 3. Defendant is a lessor of a large piece of land admeasuring 48057 sq. yards described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. By an Indenture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Sunder Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Nilang Desai and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. The preliminary issue with regard to the bar of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) is to be decided. The issue has been framed thus: Whether this Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. The suit is filed by a co-operative housing society against the two previous owners of the land owned by the society, part of which came to be leased to them under an unregistered agreement of lease. The suit is also filed against the Ex-Secretary of the society who is alleged to have executed a forged and fabricated document in favour of another third party. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the previous owners. Defendant No.3 is the previous Secretary. Defendant No.4 is the successor in interest of defendant Nos.1 and 2 under certain documents executed by and between defendant Nos.3 and 4. 3. The predecessors-in-title of defendant Nos.1 and 2 sought to develop t...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Babasaheb Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Application is filed under Section 407 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the Special Case. 2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was working as District Agriculture Officer at Nandurbar when chargesheet came to be filed on the basis of trap laid under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Case No.21 of 2013 is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Nandurbar. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant-Accused, in the course of his posting at Nandurbar, had carried out various raids and taken various actions against the dealers, distributors and shop owners. According to the learned counsel for Applicant, the Applicant has apprehension if the trial takes place at Nandurbar, such dealers, distributors and shop owners will influence the witnesses and the Applicant will not get ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Suyog Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. This Revision Application has been filed by original Accused-Petitioner facing Sessions Case No.163 of 2009 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Petitioner is facing offence punishable under Section 376, 328, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The evidence of Respondent No.2 ( I have refrained to put her name, which is available in the original Petition) as PW3 was being recorded in the Sessions Case and in the course of cross-examination, a letter was put up to her. She declined that the same was in her handwriting. She was asked and she wrote out a passage to dictation of the Advocate for Petitioner-Accused and also put signatures in Marathi and English as she was asked. The Petitioner-Accused filed application Exhibit 26 and the Sessions Judge passed order that the disputed document Article A and the sample handwriting given by the prosecutrix Exhibit 24 and other admitted documents as mentioned in the order, be sent to the State Examiner of Docum...
Tag this Judgment!inacio Amorim V.Dâandeuro;andtrade; Costa, Since Deceased Through His ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Shri Mangeshkar, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1, who is only the contesting party to this petition. 4. The only point which arises for consideration in this case is:- Whether the impugned order dated 16.2.2013 allowing counter claim of respondent no.1 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda is illegal and arbitrary? 5. The facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are stated in brief as under:- The petitioners are the plaintiffs who had filed a suit against respondent no.1 and 2 for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.08.1996 and for damages. Plaint was presented in the month of August, 2007. It was resisted by respondent no.1 who filed his written statement dated 1.4.2008. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.1 revolves around the delivery of second flat, S-2, as a part consideration of the agreement for sale of the suit plot executed between ...
Tag this Judgment!Adil Phiroz Makhania Vs. Dilip Gordhandas Gondalia and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks revocation of the probate granted by this court in testamentary and intestate petition No. 701 of 2003 by its order dated 24th May, 2003. The petitioner claims to be maternal cousin of Ms. Roshan Dadi Arsiwalla. The said Ms. Roshan Arsiwalla died on 25th June, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the œsaid deceased?). 2. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: (a) The petitioner is son of the deceased' mother's brother. The names of the other legal heirs of the said deceased according to petitioner are described in paragraph 3 of the petition. The said deceased has alleged to have left a Will on 11th November, 2002. Under the said alleged Will, the respondent herein were appointed as executors and trustees. (b) On 6th May, 2004 the respondent herein filed a petition (701 of 2003) in this court inter alia praying for probate in respect of the said alleged Will of the said deceased in th...
Tag this Judgment!Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. M/S Sadhana Builders Pvt. a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference? 3. This revision application challenges order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 4. Respondent no.1, being owner of the suit property bearing survey no. 23/1-B, is developing the property by constructing a residential complex. This property is land locked and has access only through one road situated on its western boundary. Road passes through plot of land belonging to the petitioner. It is the contention of respondent no.1 that this road (hereinafter called as suit road) providing access to the suit property is in existence even before the property through which it passes was acquired ...
Tag this Judgment!Smita Suryakant Ashtekar @ Smita Deepak Kumbhare Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) 1. Heard. Considering the nature of controversy raised by the petitioner, particularly challenge to the order of externment, we do not propose to permit intervention of applicant Narwade or getting him added as respondent no.2. Application for intervention dismissed. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard finally by consent. 3. The petitioner questions order of externment in externment proceeding No.5/2013 recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Ahmednagar, dated 20th Jan., 2014, and 27th Jan., 2014, confirmed in appeal by order dated 10th March, 2014. 4. Before we advert and ponder upon the issues, the broad out-line of submissions from Mr. Gaware needs to be scanned. (a) The notice dt.14.10.2013 is vague, without particulars. (b) The witnesses whose affidavits are tendered are not summoned. (c) For the same set of offense, she was earlier externed for four months and she has been victimized by second notice dated 14.10.2013. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »